I’m an independent aviation safety consultant and Adjunct Professor at Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology and regular monthly columnist for four aviation trade publications. I was a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board and airline mechanic for more than 30 years and was also the first and only aviation mechanic to ever serve as a Board Member. I co-authored two text books (Safety Management Systems in Aviation, Ashgate Publishing 2009 and Implementation of Safety Management Systems in Aviation, Ashgate Publishing 2011).

Latest TWA 800 Conspiracy Theory: How Likely Is It? Former NTSB Member Responds.

The shell of TWA flight 800, is seen shortly before a press conference July 16, 2008 at the National Transportation Safety Board(NTSB) training facility in Ashburn, Virginia. Federal transportation officials announced a new rule Wednesday aimed at preventing fuel tank explosions like the one that destroyed TWA Flight 800 almost exactly 12 years ago. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

Conspiracy theories abound. For TWA 800, those theories began almost immediately after the aircraft exploded mid-air and came plunging into the waters off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996. Now a petition to re-open the NTSB investigation has been filed and a new documentary is scheduled for release which raises those conspiracy theories once again. How do these “new” theories stack up against the NTSB investigation?

I was one of five NTSB Board members that approved the TWA 800 accident report that determined that the probable cause of the accident was an explosion in the BoeingBoeing 747’s center fuel tank. I have read the petition filed by a former NTSB accident investigator and have watched the documentary (made available to the media) that was recently produced to refute the NTSB’s probable cause determination.

The petition and film rely on four main points: 1) radar data that allegedly shows an explosion next to the aircraft 2) eyewitness accounts of flashes of light traveling from the ground up that were allegedly discounted; 3) trace amounts of chemical residue that were found; and 4) aircraft wreckage that was inconsistent with a center fuel tank explosion. In addition, they allege a conspiracy by the NTSB and FBI to destroy and cover-up evidence.

No Evidence in Aircraft Fuselage Wreckage of Explosion Next to Aircraft

I was personally involved on-scene in the accident investigation and spent many, many hours over the course of four years reviewing data and wreckage from the aircraft. If an explosion had occurred outside the aircraft while it was in flight, aircraft damage inside the aircraft would have shown a pattern of blast fragments coming from outside the aircraft. Aircraft debris from inside the fuselage did not contain evidence of such an explosion. Nor did the aircraft skin around the fuselage. This skin is relatively thin and easy to damage and would have shown evidence of an explosion.

While this latest analysis looks at one very small part of the radar data, it fails to account for the fact that none of the radar data shows any missiles [see below].

Eyewitness Accounts Not Supported by Radar

To reconcile the various eyewitness accounts, the documentary makes the preposterous charge that not one, but three missiles were launched on the night of July 17, 1996 and exploded near the TWA 800 aircraft. While the film claims to have the radar data from five different locations surrounding the accident site, it has no radar evidence to support any missile launch, let alone two or three.

It’s hard to imagine that three missiles large enough to get to 13,800 feet (the altitude of the aircraft just before it broke up in flight) would not show up on radar. During the course of the NTSB’s investigation, I reviewed the radar data with NTSB experts and was convinced that no missile traces at all were on the radar. Not one missile trace was ever found on the radar data and the film makes no claim that missile traces exist on the radar.

In my opinion, the eyewitness accounts are less reliable than the radar data. Period.

Trace Amounts of Chemical Residue Common on Everyday Objects

Trace amounts of the chemical residue that is used to make explosives was found during the course of the investigation. However, that same chemical residue is found in many other products including the glue that was used to attach the seat material to the seat frame. Without other corroborating evidence of a missile – such as metallurgical damage consistent with a missile – the trace amounts of chemical residue found were insufficient to conclude that they resulted from an explosion.

Aircraft Wreckage Consistent with Center Fuel Tank Explosion

The film ignores significant physical evidence that the center fuel tank exploded. More specifically, the evidence indicates that the fuel tank over-pressurized, tore apart significant wing structure and ejected pieces from inside the fuel tank. Those inner fuel tank pieces were found in the “red” debris field – that is the debris field closest to JFK, where the aircraft took off, indicating that the fuel tank pieces were among the first pieces to leave the aircraft. The aircraft fuel tank and surrounding floor and ceiling debris show metal pieces bowed consistent with extreme pressure from inside the fuel tank.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

FBI was there to check serial numbers, because they were tipped TWA-800 was really firing line number 305. This investigator has somehow mistaken NTSB getting caught with FBI misconduct. Kallstrom is on board to put ex-FAA and NTSB folks in prison, but does that really serve any purpose now? If NTSB had done their job then there would have been no SR-111, but that opportunity is long gone.

I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life. Here’s what I do, Going1.C0M_

There are hundreds of reports of ascending lights (not objects)in the sky but a much smaller number of them ascending lights from ground level. The ground level reports were not explained but discounted because there was no other corroborating data – no radar data, no damage to the aircraft consistent with an object exploding from outside the aircraft or hitting the aircraft. On the other hand, there was considerable evidence of the center fuel tank exploding.

An accident investigation needs to look at all evidence – not some evidence in isolation. In order to reconcile the eyewitness statements on ascending lights from ground level, the film makers were forced to come up with a three-missile-theory. In other words, that three missiles were launched from three different locations and hit near the aircraft at close to the same time. There is no radar evidence of one missile let alone three. There is no aircraft damage consistent with one missile let alone three

Right after the accident, the FBI took control of the investigation because it thought the aircraft might have been brought down by a missile or a bomb. The FBI was looking to the radar data to confirm its early suspicions. The data from multiple radar sites did not support those early assumptions and the investigation was turned over to the NTSB at that point. The radar data never changed. In fact, the petition and the film makers do not claim that the radar data was tampered with.

Fact of the matter is, there is (or was) significant evidence of a high velocity explosion. One of the most telling is a bone fragment driven through sheet metal. An over pressure fuel tank explosion will not impart that kind of energy to dismembered body parts.

There are anomalies in the radar record, such as missing data for a crucial sector. There were multiple, independent findings of high explosive residue. One journalist, James Sanders, was actually prosecuted for obtaining a sample, and having it tested. The sample, of course tested positive for military grade explosive residue.

The most likely cause for bone fragment to pierce metal were the high impact forces from contact with the ocean.

As far as radar, this aircraft was covered by multiple radar sites. While a given site may have had an abnormality at a given point in time, the other sites at that same point in time did not have any abnormality. So the accumulated radar data painted a complete picture.

John, you failed to address Steven’s very cogent point regarding the samples which tested positive for military grade explosive residue. If you plan on arguing that these sources contaminated the evidence which tested positive, tell us where they found access to such military-grade explosive residue – It’s not just some crap you can cook up in a kitchen like the ‘crazed conspiracy theories’ you attempt to deny… Although you also address radar findings, you fail to even mention the facts which suggest ‘high-impact explosion’ from radar evidence that shows debris traveling at Mach-4 (unaccountable in the official ‘low-impact explosion’ theory. You are really doing yourself a disservice by ignoring the most crucial points of evidence and blindly defending a fraudulent investigation.

“On the other hand, there was considerable evidence of the center fuel tank exploding.” – Well, DUH, of course it exploded. That’s what fuel tanks do when they are struck by a missile. Also, if this was perpetrated by forces within our own government or possibly a foreign one there is definite possibility these forces obtained technology capable of avoiding radar detection. There are planes that can do it, why not missiles? Although not as many witnesses saw these objects ascend from ground level, they saw the ascension of the object hit the plane and THEN saw an explosion from which the plane immediately began to descend. These 700+ witnesses all agree on this point – Not the amateur attempt by the CIA to try and prove the plane’s left wing fuel tank exploded on its own and then it actually ascended vertically without a left wing… You’ve got to be kidding me if you believe that crap… CIA: (Repeat after me) “NOT A MISSILE” It’s almost comical how sad this cover-up attempt really is. It’s implications are baffling and astounding, deserving of thorough investigation and honest journalism unlike your own.

Terminal velocity for falling objects is not going to be sufficient to drive bone fragments into sheet metal.

As a distinguished honor graduate of both the US Army Air Defense 24E and 24D Hawk Missile Electronics courses, and having years of hands on experience with pulse acquisition, IFF, continuous wave acquisition, and tracking radars, I find your explanation dubious at best.

Please explain how a sector of target returns can vanish. Can you provide other examples of such a thing happening?

When two of the lead aircraft incident investigators and the two lead medical examiners, as well as a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other flag and field grade officers with relevant expertise say they believe the plane was shot down, after reviewing the NTSB report, that, in itself calls for a new investigation.

I am the mother of one of the Montoursville French Club students who perished on TWA 800. I have had a vested interest in this case from the moment my daughter stepped foot onto the plane. I have had information and experts placed at my disposal that the average individual has not. As a result of our involvement and being well informed, most of the families believe the official findings. There is no such thing as closure for a parent who has lost a child. The best we can do is to hone our coping skills and rebuild new lives for ourselves to the best of our abilities. Most 800 families I know feel great sadness for the few families who do not accept the official findings, and therefore cannot move on. It is disheartening and very upsetting that we must continue to be subjected to a public rehashing of what to us is a very personal tragedy.

Initially, I read many of the eyewitness’s testimony. The majority compare what they saw to fireworks or a flare. July is the height of firework use, so it makes sense. Occam’s Razor is the theorem that states that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one, hence I have concluded that the witnesses may have seen a flare, or fireworks which had no bearing on the crash. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable of all forms-a fact that I used to teach long before that terrible July night. Memory is malleable. Seeing something ascend and then the explosion of the craft could easily be mistaken as cause and effect of one incident instead of two unrelated events. I don’t begrudge these folks their belief that what they saw was a contributing factor to the demise of Flight 800. I do however resent that because these witnesses are convinced of what they saw, that they and their supporters feel that they have the right to usurp the scientific evidence presented to the contrary, and continually dredge up the worst day of the families’ lives, inflicting further pain on us. Isn’t our burden heavy enough already?

I have also read Hank Hughes’ testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 1997. Mr. Hughes has been consistent in decrying what he believes to be inappropriate handling of evidence and inappropriate behaviors of the FBI during the investigation. In spite of his concerns expressed back in 1997, Mr. Hughes testified under oath that there was no indication that criminal activity was present as a cause of the crash. He has been vocal in recent interviews, stating that his conscience and the integrity of the investigation are the driving forces in coming forward now.

I see that James Sanders has been introduced to this conversation. What I find not only perplexing, but also very disconcerting is that Mr. Hughes has been so very concerned with the FBI’s behavior, and yet I have never seen him issue such a condemnation of Mr. Sanders and his cohorts. At the request of Mr. Sanders and his wife, a TWA pilot who was aiding in the investigation actually stole evidence from the hangar Mr. Hughes was in charge of, and surrendered these stolen materials to Mr. Sanders (for which Mr. Sanders and his wife were tried and convicted for the receipt of stolen evidence, the pilot pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft). Mr. Sanders sent half of these materials to an independent lab for testing, and half to CBS as arranged by reporter/producer Kristina Borjesson.

Ms. Borjesson is Tom Stalcup’s co-producer of this new TWA 800 documentary which features Mr. Hughes as a ‘whistleblower’. I am not insinuating that Mr. Hughes had anything to do with the stolen items from his hangar or the theft itself. I am simply noting I am totally ill at ease at with the double standard employed in showing such disdain for the FBI and what is perceived to be their lack of adherence to policies and procedures, while going to work on this documentary produced by someone who was involved with an actual prosecuted theft from Mr. Huges’ hangar.

I have seen the reconstruction a number of times, sorted through personal effects, and have been given access to FBI and NTSB investigators from the start. My testimony is on record with the House, Senate, and White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security about the issues I encountered in the aftermath of the tragedy. I have witnessed agents go above and beyond to get me answers that I needed in resolving those issues and understanding the events that caused the crash. While we never got the ‘smoking gun’, I found this to be my sliver lining. The investigation was so intensive there were many issues that ended up being addressed, from bringing back to the forefront the need to inert tanks, to inspecting aging wiring and structure of in- service planes. My daughter’s death would aid in preventing others from suffering from the same fate.

We’ve had the input of dozens of experts from the NTSB, FBI, Navy, NASA, not to mention the contributions of numerous scholars from well-respected colleges and universities to give us answers. Why is a documentary put together by one scientist who had no first hand experience in this investigation, a disgruntled NTSB agent (who’s judgment I find questionable), an ME who’s actions exacerbated my troubles at the time of the crash, a former TWA employee, a member of the Airline Pilot’s Association, and a member of the Flight Attendant’s Union given this kind of coverage by the media at the expense of those of us who have paid the ultimate price? Why is their need for attention, and their attempts to draw ratings and income for their project more important than the thousands of investigators whose reputations are being called into question here? If they actually had new scientific evidence they wouldn’t need to depend on public reaction to media events to try and get the investigation reviewed.

Shame on the media for taking the bait they dangled. You must share in the responsibility for adding insult to injury to the families.